Lord Dykes: My Lords, do not the regretful scourge of anti-Semitism anywhere in the world and the mad rantings of President Ahmadinejad about Israel, naturally and understandably underscore Israel's preoccupation with security as one of its leading objectives? Equally, should not the British Government refuse to be deflected in any way from the need, particularly in the remaining days of their EU presidency, to ensure that the Sharon caretaker government now proceed with all speed to stop their illegal and inhumane treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and to provide a real start to the peace talks under the road map that were promised at Sharm el-Sheikh?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether fly-tipping is on the increase. All I can say, and I am sure that the House will share my view, is that any fly-tipping is a disgrace. We think that it occurs for a number of reasons: sometimes because producers of waste are ignorant of their responsibilities for the waste that they produce, and sometimes because householders would rather throw their bulky waste away in a lay-by rather than contact the local authority to come to collect it, perhaps because some local authorities charge for that service. Frankly, a lot of fly-tipping occurs because some householders blatantly disregard their responsibilities, and the effect on the rest of us is obvious.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, since, when member state governments and their farmers in one country cheat over agricultural subsidies, the burden is borne principally in this country as we are the principal paymaster. Is there any prospect of getting prosecutions of the governments concerned?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that that is the Agincourt question. I fear that some differences of view have persisted across the history of our two great countries. France will no doubt want to argue its corner as rigorously as it ever did. But I ask the House to accept that, despite those arguments, from Agincourt on, we have generally speaking managed in modern history to find an accommodation. Will it argue to the last moment? I am sure that it will. Will it succeed on this occasion? I hope so, but as yet, we do not know.

Baroness Seccombe: As my noble friend Lord Northesk highlighted, the term "head" does not constitute "face". It could just as easily be a picture of the back of the head and shoulders and that would do little to help identify an individual. It would be useful only if there were a permanent, defining feature such as a tattoo, but even those can be removed these days or simply covered up. As such, Amendment No. 87 would replace the word "head" with "face" to ensure that the individuals in question would actually have to show their faces.
	Amendment No. 113 would continue this terminology change in Clause 5 (5) (c) so that it would read,
	"to allow his face to be photographed",
	rather than,
	"to allow himself to be photographed".
	This consequential would also help narrow what the requirement in Clause 5 (5) allows an individual to do in that it will ensure that the face is photographed but would limit photographs of the rest of the body.
	As my honourable friend the Member for Harborough highlighted in Committee in another place:
	"I do not want to make a flippant point, but the provision does not say 'a photograph of his face' . . . I know what the Government intend, but that is not what is in the schedule, so I can imagine that all sorts of fun will be had by a clever fellow".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D; 7/7/05; col. 139.]
	However, Her Majesty's Government did not make this slight but all-important drafting change at the time. Will the Minister outline why they did not make that change? Will they consider it now that the Bill is in Committee in this House?
	While we are discussing the issue of facial measurements, I will touch briefly on the fallibility of biometric technology. As mentioned at Second Reading, it is estimated that one in six people would not be able to get ID cards because their biometric data may not be properly recordable on the card's implanted chip. Trials have demonstrated that the biometrics of black, elderly and disabled people have a higher chance of being incorrectly matched despite claims made by the Minister at Second Reading that the technology is improving all the time. Those noble Lords who were here at Second Reading will remember the personal experience of my noble friend Lady Anelay.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, highlighted during Second Reading that facial characteristics require an update for everyone approximately every five years. The effect of age, as we in this House know, is unfortunately not something that can be held back. Will Her Majesty's Government clarify whether they will be covering the cost of these essential updates for facial biometrics? What is the process should someone have plastic surgery to their face? Is the onus on them to let the system know? Do they have to provide a doctor's certificate to show that it is happened? What would happen after an accident resulting in a broken nose or jaw that would alter the facial measurements but not be the fault of the individual? Is the onus, once again on them, at a potentially difficult time, to inform the registrar of the change and arrange to have new photos? Will these costs be personal if it is through no fault of his or her own? Within how many days would they have to present themselves for the updated information? We started this debate on a light note, but there are important practical arrangements that need to be addressed—ones that I am not convinced Her Majesty's Government have thought through properly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I regret to tell the Committee that I have an old copy of the Bill—I do not know how it got in there!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is why I cannot understand how it got in there. It was not there on Friday.
	I will deal with some of the issues on biometrics first and then I will go back. I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness comfort on the difficulty about which she concerns herself.
	The use of biometrics must be seen in the context of a wide range of measures that will be taken to secure the integrity of the enrolment process on the national identity register. Additionally, in taking biometrics application data, data will be verified through checks on public and private databases. Supporting documentation will be scrutinised and the personal interviews will be conducted to establish an individual's identity. That is the background in which the biometrics will be taken. In addition to all these steps, we have the additional protection of verifying a person's biometrics against previously enrolled identities. The use of multiple identifiers—that is, fingerprints, iris and photos—will provide extra protection against fraud by enhancing the ability to check against previously enrolled identities and also ensuring that biometrics are captured for anyone who would have difficulties with a single biometric. So the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly foreshadowed the response that I am making on that point.
	Therefore, when we look at the data that we now have, there are some indicators that should give us comfort. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that there were difficulties in one in six instances. I think I can comfort her by saying that that is not in fact correct—it is not correct that one in six could not participate in the ID card scheme due to an inability to record biometrics. The UK Passport Service trial showed that at least 99.954 per cent of the participants could enrol at least one biometric. So there was not a difficulty there.
	As for the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, raised on coloured contact lenses, such lenses would be noticeable to a trained supervisor at biometric recording and the individual would be requested to remove them. Normal contact lenses will not cause problems for enrolment; but the clever contact lenses that change colour do, and therefore they can be detectable. In the letter of 9 December, which I regret not everyone has a copy of, I dealt with many of these issues in the annexe. Your Lordships will find that, in Annexe B, I tried to answer a range of questions on biometrics because I knew that a number of noble Lords had raised them. It will be up to an individual—to answer the second question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—to decide whether the photograph on their ID card needs to be updated because their appearance has changed. Just as now, many people quite like to hang on to the old photograph for the 10 years for reasons that seem to me absolutely reasonable. Others may like to change them a little earlier.
	Clause 1(7)(e) does not cover any physical characteristics, only those that are capable of being used for identifying the person. So, for example, illnesses could not be recorded under this paragraph. That is one of the issues addressed in the letter to which I referred. Again, I am sorry if not all noble Lords have had an opportunity to read it.
	Perhaps we can now come back to the question raised by the noble Baroness about how the clause is phrased, and indeed the concern raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the back of the head could be taken as opposed to the face. As these photographs will be taken by staff of the agency, I am not convinced that the problem will arise in practice: I would hope that those who undertake these tests would actually be able to recognise the back of the head as opposed to the front of the head. There is also the question of the reference—whether, if you have the face alone, someone will say that the hair is or is not included.
	I am more than prepared to look at the wording with a view to aligning the phrase used with that which appears in the UK Passport Service standard for passport photographs, which refers to head, face and shoulders. I hope to return by Report with something to allay the anxieties that have been expressed, but I reassure the Committee that I do not think in practice there will be much difficulty in identifying the facial features to appear on the photograph.

Lord Crickhowell: The noble Baroness, as usual, gave a very helpful reply and there may be even more detail in the lengthy document which we have not yet seen. I pursue one aspect of the matter. The noble Baroness took up the point I had anticipated—that we would take all these identification features together. But I do not think she completely answered my point about what I think are termed "false rejects". The report from which I have already quoted points out that:
	"Where the threshold is set depends upon the situation in which we are using the biometric technology".
	Obviously, if we are dealing with access to a country, we want to set a very high standard and therefore we do not mind if there are false rejects, even if they cause inconvenience. But very often we will be dealing with situations where convenience will be much more important and we will not want a lot of false rejects. Is it the Government's intention to have a range of operational factors available to give guidelines? Have they worked out how they are going to deal with the problem of false rejects and set a variety of standards?

Lord Selsdon: I want to try to help the noble Baroness, as I always have done on this. I commend to the Committee Appendix B of her report, paragraph 17 to the end. It is a pity that my quotation comes at the end and it is a pity that we have not had a chance to read it before. I had the advantage of having it delivered to me expressly. The first page of the report I opened states:
	"Can biometrics be forged or 'spoofed'? Studies have shown that biometrics can be 'spoofed' to fool a biometric reader".
	That was all that I had time to read in detail, but I commend to the House and to everyone the initiative that the noble Baroness has taken. It is a pity that her department could not be a little quicker on its feet.

The Earl of Onslow: I suggest to your Lordships that if we did have 10 minutes off it would probably save considerably more than 10 minutes of us being corrected because we had not read the document or the noble Baroness having to explain things in greater detail; I would certainly like to have 10 minutes. I concede that my presence in the Chamber or absence thereof for 10 minutes will not make a single difference to the great strategic flow of statutory rivers that we go through, but it would be quite helpful to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Lord Williams of Elvel: I got a copy of the letter sent by the noble Baroness, and she has done everything possible to illuminate the discussions at a previous stage in Committee. This is the first time in Committees of this House that I have had a Minister spell out exactly what the responses were to Committee at an earlier stage. I do not believe that we should go on and on and round about on this. I hope very much that the House will resist the idea of going into a 10-minute break, because it will not help the Earl of Onslow.

The Earl of Northesk: In moving Amendment No. 90, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110 and 171. Amendment No. 90 proposes the deletion of Schedule 1(2)(c). In the context of the scheme, an individual's fingerprints will merely be another digitised biometric, essentially of the same character as those for iris or facial recognition. Therefore, to identify them separately is otiose. My other two amendments, to Clauses 5 and 12 respectively, have the same objective.
	Moreover, there is no indication in the Bill precisely what form of fingerprints it is envisaged will be used. Clause 43 defines fingerprint as:
	"in relation to an individual . . . a record (in any form and produced by any method) of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics or features of any of his fingers".
	The Minister will recall that in response to a Starred Question that I asked about the UK prison estate she alluded to a number of different mixes of biometrics used in that context, including "hand geometry". Any one of a number of routes could be adopted for fingerprints in respect of the scheme, but the Bill is silent on the matter. Will the requirement be limited to a single digit or applied to all 10? Perhaps the Home Office is contemplating full palmprints; presumably that is the same as hand geometry and consistent with criminal fingerprint legislation.
	Moreover, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate made plain at Second Reading, a distinction has to be made between an analogue and a digitised system. All these factors are linked inextricably to the eventual cost and reliability of the scheme. That in turn infers that the form of fingerprint or fingerprints—in fact, the whole range of biometric identifiers to be used in the scheme—should be stated explicitly in the Bill rather than being left to subordinate legislation.
	Having said all that, of course I recognise that throughout our debates the Minister has consistently referred to a total of 13 biometric identifiers. This suggests that the Government have already made up their collective mind about the appropriate way forward on the matter. That being so, there is no practical reason why the detail cannot be written into the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: I welcome this group of amendments as it enables us to discuss the ins and outs of fingerprinting and fingerprint data and, indeed, what the Government intend to include under the auspices of "other biometric information". I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 90A and 111.
	The question of why the UK is going for such an elaborate biometric database deserves the deepest probing during the course of the Bill. Air travel regulations do not require nation states to collect 13 biometric details, as is often loosely stated by supporters of the national identity register. Indeed, those regulations have specifically recognised that many nation states do not want to emulate the British requirement and, in some cases, would not be permitted to do so. German privacy laws, for example, forbid the creation of a national biometric database, and for that reason their biometric system has been set up to exclude the kind of audit trail that the Government here want to impose on us.
	The German system includes two index fingerprints. There was strong resistance to the idea in Germany. Indeed, it was reported in the Financial Times that there was a stampede by German citizens to secure old-style passports before the new ones came in because of opposition to national registration. I have to say that the German authorities were more open and honest than ours. Here, the public have still not been told what is proposed for passport registration from the end of next year. I have yet to meet any person not involved in this debate who is aware that to have the right to leave our country a UK citizen without a passport or whose passport has lapsed will have to go to an interrogation centre, be questioned and fingerprinted, secretly registered and given a number—and, of course, pay for that privilege.
	The Government do not like it when the London School of Economics report is mentioned, but perhaps the Minister should go away and read it again. She will find a devastating accumulation of evidence showing that the UK fingerprint requirement goes beyond what is being sought or permitted in most other countries. The only reason for such an elaborate database can be for the internal control of United Kingdom citizens.
	It is also argued that EU regulations would require the taking and storing of these biometric details. It used to be said that that was necessary to comply with US standards. That is not true. The US immigration authorities do not require full palm prints or prints of all 10 digits; nor are they planning that. Once again, over-specification can be construed only as part of a UK or EU project to compile databases on UK and EU citizens.
	The United States is upgrading its immigration facilities following the Patriot Act, but if you go to a state-of-the-art facility, such as the giant facility at Houston Airport, which opened recently, you will find that visitors are photographed. They are even asked for a fingerprint, but only of the index finger of each hand. There is no question of trying to take a print of every finger, as the Government wish.
	After long flights, most people suffer substantial dehydration, and it is difficult for the readers to take a print in such circumstances. Wet pads are available for visitors to moisten their fingers, but they sometimes have to repeat three or four times the attempt to read each print. Imagine that being replicated 10 times over. Imagine the unnecessary delays. Imagine the extra costs involved in developing the technology to store and check the prints. Image the extra complexity and cost of the readers that would be required by police, immigration authorities, doctors, hospitals, social security offices and all those that the Government want to embrace within the system. The whole thing is potentially an elaborate folly and a disaster in the making that is not justified by any international standard or requirement by other nations. It is simply a luxury tool for our Government.
	I hope, therefore, that if the Government persist with this scheme they will accept this limiting amendment and curb their ambitions—and so curb costs. If they do not do so, the Committee will need a very good explanation by the noble Baroness as to why the UK is gold-plating in this way and a clear statement of the costs involved.

Lord Selsdon: I have nothing at all against fingerprints. In fact I keep a set of my own, so that if there were any robberies, I could be eliminated as a potential criminal. My fingerprints are on some of my travel cards, so that I can obtain certain benefits when I arrive by shoving my finger in a slot and typing in the details of the aircraft I am travelling on.
	I have tremendous sympathy with my noble friend Lady Seccombe—and there has been no collusion between us—on the subject of Germany, on which I intended to intervene. I go there regularly and the Social Democrat party is very much opposed to such moves because they do not want Germany returning to a police state. Those are not my words. All parties in Germany agree with that, because they have a pathological fear of the rise of the dominant centre.
	Two fingers is all right—I am sorry I should not have said that, but their use came from the battle of Agincourt and it depends which way round you put them. It is worrying that the use of fingerprints should be deemed so important. I still prefer the original requirement to register identifying marks such as a mole or, more likely today, a tattoo—although that would occupy many pages—on a passport. There was a discreet method whereby if someone lost a finger or something, that disability would be politely and quietly noted.
	As Members of the Committee know, many people, including children, lose the tops of their fingers, so I wonder what would happen if on their arrival in the United States or the United Arab Emirates—the noble Baroness seems to think that those are the two most important biometrics centres in the world—it was found that they were missing a finger. I support the amendment. I do not believe that we should make too much fuss about it, but it is so logical, sensible and gentlemanly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will certainly look at it, but I do not think that it is a difficulty. I am relatively sure that parliamentary counsel will tell me that the three elements have to be read together and, therefore, the position is absolutely clear. I am more than happy to consider this because I am clear that the Government intend that only external characteristics are required and we believe that that is delivered by the Bill. We will look again to ensure that that is the proper construction and, if any further clarity is needed, I shall be happy to look at it. I do not think that there is any difficulty, but I understand the noble Lord's concern.
	Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 117 deal with fingerprint issues. Fingerprint evidence was first used in court to convict an offender as long ago as 1902, more than 100 years ago—a date which I am sure will please the noble Earl. To reiterate, it is intended that we will capture the 13 biometrics—that is the 10 fingerprints, the two irises and the face. Amendments Nos. 90A and 111 would limit any fingerprint biometric recorded on the national identity register and on application to index fingers only. A scheme the size of the United Kingdom ID card scheme would not have a high likelihood of success if only two fingers were used. More are required to differentiate between people with the degree of confidence we require when a large population is involved.
	I think we have already dealt with the issues regarding the EU and the ICAO requirements. They are, as your Lordships will know, minimum common standards. The introduction of these requirements and the introduction of initiatives, such as the US-visit project, may be initial drivers for the identity card scheme, but, as I tried to indicate earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we are trying to find the best model we can to ensure that it has the longest lifespan and the greatest degree of accuracy. Therefore, we are looking now to find that. We wish to approach it with our 13 biometric identifiers because that is the best quality information we have at the moment.
	I hope that with those responses noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: All noble Lords present would say that we never expect the noble Baroness to mislead the House because she does not do so: she always treats us with great courtesy. She has given an apology that I did not seek. I was going to say that I have now had the opportunity to speed-read that letter. I note that there is a substantial section on costs, which I think will appropriately be dealt with when we reach Amendment No. 259A, so we will have time in the next two days properly to consider that information. I notice that there are issues in the letter regarding the biometrics. Of course I appreciate that we will return to those specific issues on Report. I cannot at first sight see issues raised in the letter that need to be dealt with today by way of an adjournment. But having done only a speed read, I could be proved completely wrong. I hope not.
	I turn to my amendments. Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which gives the Government the power to require that personal reference numbers should be entered into the national identity register. Amendment No. 96 is grouped with them because it also covers the question of numbers. This is a continuation of our quest to find out what will be behind this skeleton Bill. Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 95 and 96 were tabled in another place and were called to be debated in Committee on 12 July. It is not my normal practice to retable amendments from the Commons when I feel that they have been debated and answered, but unfortunately, not only did the Minister, Mr McNulty, decide not to respond to them, he made it absolutely clear that he would not. He said:
	"Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 160.]
	That is a red rag to a bull; I had to table the amendments to ask the Government for the answer.
	Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 make it clear that the ID card number should be the same as the national identity registration number. Why should they be different? Amendment No. 94 is an odd one out; it is new to this House. It would remove the subsection that records the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. Which documents do the Government mean? Are they documents to use for travel purposes? Would that be within the UK? I am aware that some budget airlines are now imposing restrictions on customers and requiring the production of identity for domestic travel. As I understand it, that is not so much for security reasons as for a simple commercial reason. They want to prevent their customers passing on their tickets for others' use, thus avoiding the payment of an administration fee to the airline for a change of name. I do not say whether they are right or wrong; I just noticed that that is the practice that they are adopting.
	Are the documents in subsection (g) those that may only be used when a passport is required or are they documents that we may choose to use, such as a utility bill, when we are not required to produce a passport but find it convenient to show the bill as proof of the reason for inquiry? Amendment No. 95 returns to the unanswered amendments in another place and would delete paragraph 4(1)(l), which deals with personal reference numbers. It refers to,
	"the number of any designated document which is held by him and is a document the number of which does not fall within any of the preceding sub-paragraphs".
	I am not exactly clear, but I assume that that implies that we will end up with dozens upon dozens of numbers recorded against our name. What kind of numbers do the Government have in mind to be covered by the sub-paragraph?
	Amendment No. 96 is another unanswered amendment. It removes sub-paragraph (g) from paragraph 6, which covers one's history of making applications and the changes that are made to one's national identity register information. Sub-paragraph (g) requires a record to be kept of everyone who has ever countersigned one's application for an ID card or an application for a designated document. Does a designated document at present mean only a passport? Does it mean a driving licence and what could it mean in future?
	The more that one reads Schedule 1, the more that one's mind begins to boggle at the sheer size of the database that we seem to be constructing. We need to be convinced that in the Government's rush to record every aspect of our lives, we allow them to record only what is strictly necessary and convenient to us. The overall imperative must be to follow what the Government said on Clause 1. This must be a system convenient to the individual, not merely to the Government.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A simply remove references to driving licences from Schedule 1. They are probing amendments only to ask the Government to put on record their reasons why they should be included on the national identity register. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My guess is that it will sequential, as it is with your cheque or Visa card. These have a different issue number each time you are issued with a card. I do not see a great difficulty with that. It seems quite a logical system.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I very much share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who has moved the amendment. I hope the Minister will satisfy us. Paragraph 9(c) is couched in extremely wide terms. It states,
	"other particulars, in relation to each such occasion, of the provision of the information".
	Is it not possible to be a little more exact than this? Or is it, as I suspect, yet another instance of what I would call the quartermaster mentality of the Home Office and the noble Baroness's advisers—"You never know when we might want some other form of information, so let us put in a general sweeper, a kind of Hoover which will suck in every possibility which might confront us"?
	The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, which very much concerns me, is the duty we owe to our fellow citizens. One does not have to look at many newspapers, nor look very far back, to find examples of laws which have passed through your Lordships' House and the other place which have then been attended by the most extraordinary unintended consequences. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but the perfectly nice and very harmless lady who made a speech the other day in front of the Cenotaph about British casualties in Iraq was treated in the most extraordinary fashion. She was taken away by a large escort, when I am quite sure that no Minister had possibly foreseen such a thing happening under that Act of Parliament. At the same time, the gentleman who regularly makes such a nasty mess all over Parliament Square, against whom legislation was aimed, is still there. There is a muddle here.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is absolutely right. I worry about the belief that we might need these powers so we had better have them. There is no thought in the minds of Ministers at the time about what some red-tape-minded, inquisitive official might make use of. People do not examine passports too carefully in this country, but I have often been asked the most footling questions about details in my passport when I have been abroad. The added requirement that the Bill will put on everybody to inform officials in any country of intimate and numerous details will afford inquisitive officials a marvellous opportunity to bully people and waste their time. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind, because I am not at all satisfied.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wonder whether I may attempt to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. To hazard a guess—which the Minister may confirm or deny as she chooses—"may" simply gives a power to the person who keeps the register to make entries in the register to this effect. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be his job to do so. He will be instructed to enter these matters. The power will exist in the Bill.
	The second question is, what does "other particulars" mean? It must mean the reasons for the person seeking the information. I should like your Lordships to ponder the significance of that for a moment. When a policeman wishes to look at the register to check certain things about an individual, no doubt he will fill in a form. Everybody will fill in a form under this schedule. People will fill a form in every three months, to give some new numbers on their driving licence, because they have changed their name, or for some such reason. A mass of information must be given. I am sure that someone seeking information from the register will have to identify himself, state the date on which he makes the application, and give a reason for that. As I have suggested, it may be because someone wants to look into a criminal record, or the tax authorities might want to see who you are and whether you have paid your taxes in the past, and so on. All that personal information will be entered on the register by the person whose job it is to do that, and it will be there for people to read for the rest of that person's life.
	At Second Reading, I spoke against the entire principle of the Bill, but it is when you look at the schedule that you see all the problems emerging. As I said, there will be forms to be filled in and detailed information to be given and private information will remain on that register for the rest of time—unaltered, no doubt, if circumstances have changed. The whole system is a nightmare, and I am amazed that the Government want to go ahead with it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Amendment No. 97A leaves out the words,
	"documents that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment".
	One could say that those words are entirely innocent of any detail. They are very vague so I have tabled the amendment to explore the mind of the noble Baroness to see whether they can be improved. They could hardly be vaguer. I am starting to believe that vagueness in the language of the Home Office has a high cardinal virtue but not elsewhere. I should be very interested to see whether the noble Baroness is willing to change these words so that they mean something and provide some guidance. They caught my eye as being part of a very vague, massive parcel, which needs a lot of probing. I realise that the Government are becoming impatient and want to get on with the Bill, but I hope that they sympathise with the desire that is expressed quite briefly by Members on this side of the Chamber that some of it is very confusing and very vague indeed—unacceptably vague. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendments Nos. 98 and 102A, in my name, are grouped with this amendment. I agree entirely with what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to use statutory instruments to designate documents. If a document becomes a designated document, anyone who applies for that document must also apply for an ID card unless he already has one. The operative term there is that he must apply for an ID card. The compulsion that exists in Clause 5(2)(a) is foreshadowed here. Clause 5(2) says that,
	"Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual",
	that person must also apply to be entered on the national identity register. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Explanatory Notes give passports and residence permits as the only examples of what could be designated documents.
	My Amendment No. 98 would limit designation to passports alone. Amendment No. 102A gives a list of documents that we say must not become designated documents by statutory instrument. The list could have been much longer, but it is simply a sample of documents to ask the Government what they intend should become designated. We refer simply to driving licences, national health cards, marriage certificates, registration of civil partnerships, documents relating to state retirement pensions and the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure numbers.
	In debates in this House and in another place, the Government have said time and time again that during the initial period of operation of the register, it will be voluntary to have an ID card. We believe that the reality is very different. As soon as any document is designated, it will be compulsory to have an ID card. We believe that that is compulsion by stealth and it is a theme we will pursue in great depth as we reach Clause 5. I shall not therefore go into too much detail now.
	My amendments in this group would not remove compulsion—we look at that in Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, but they would at least confine the designation of documents to passports. Why should the Government wish to designate any of the other documents if they are genuine about their claim that the initial period is supposed to be voluntary?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102, 147, 148 and 150, in my name. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 were originally in this group, but they have been degrouped with my consent and will be dealt with later.
	As ever, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Like him, I was not so guileless as to believe that this scheme is not intended to be compulsory overall. My noble friend is right that the Government have made clear their ultimate objective: to force all of us to have ID cards. In the beginning, we were not clear about what kind of scheme it is, with its mammoth register and all the difficulties involved in that. The public, who I am sure all avidly read the Labour Party manifesto, would not have believed that, because it said:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	The Minister has made it clear that when the Government use the word "voluntary" they mean "compulsory". In that case, I have to look at the Bill in a different way. I am sure we will have full debates on that issue when we come to Clauses 5, 6 and 7.
	My amendments are modest. Amendment No. 101 would protect United Kingdom citizens from being forced to suffer any penalty if they refused to surrender to a Minister of the Crown or a Northern Ireland department any document that they hold lawfully, provided that the purpose of the demand for the surrender of that document arose out of the Government's determination to replace it with a designated document that would carry with it a requirement for the person to apply to be entered on the national identity register and thereby have to have an ID card, according to the Bill. They would be subject to a penalty only after the scheme has been made compulsory—the Government would say "fully compulsory"—for all by the super-affirmative process.
	Amendment No. 102 goes further and establishes that somebody who has to apply for a new document that is a designated document for the purposes of the Bill cannot be forced to have an ID card unless certain conditions are met. They are that the person has stated in writing that he wants to have an ID card, or that the scheme has been made compulsory for everybody over the age of 18.
	Amendment No. 147 removes the distinction in Clause 8(6) between an application for an ID card and an application to be entered on, or to confirm an entry on, the national identity register. We believe that people should be given the opportunity to refuse to have an ID card in the initial period, the so-called "voluntary period", even if they are entered on the register.
	Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 knock out more of the compulsion by stealth in the voluntary period. They remove subsections that force one to apply for an ID card when one applies for a designated document. I believe that my amendments are entirely in line with the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I have high hopes that the Minister will want to adopt them. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Until my noble friend Lady Carnegy's intervention, I was going to be a lot kinder in my response than I now have to be, because I think that my noble friend has elicited from the Minister a very worrying attempt at reassurance. The Minister tells us that we do not need to be concerned if we have—as I have—a passport renewed only within the last year because renewal is something way off in the future that I do not have to worry about.
	The fact is that on 15 November in this House, as reported at col. 994, the Minister estimated that, by restricting the scheme to passport designation, by the time—if this Government—it they were still in power—wished to move to the full period of compulsion, 85 per cent of the population would already be on the national identity register. That does not square with the reassurance that she has just tried to give my noble friend. We will need to debate that point at length in other groups of amendments because it goes to the very heart of the reservations some of us have about this scheme.
	I will return to the part where I was going to accept some reassurances—if I can reassure the Minister on that. The Minister gave a very careful and detailed response to my amendments, for which I am grateful. She gave an assurance with regard to Amendment No. 101 in particular, which I will read extremely carefully in Hansard.  But I took it that I could be assured that the Government will not require the surrender of a document in order to engineer the issue of a designated document. The noble Baroness nods her head. In that case, I shall want to talk to my noble friends who are speaking to the Road Safety Bill because, as I understand it, when we divided recently in this House to remove Clauses 29 and 30 from that Bill, it was to ensure that the very assurance that the Minister has just given us was enshrined within that Bill for driving licences. The assurance that the noble Baroness has given the Committee today on Amendment No. 101 may well mean that the Government will not seek to overturn the decision of this House to remove Clauses 29 and 30 of the Road Safety Bill. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have three amendments in this group—Amendment No. 108, Amendment No. 155, which deals with the same arrangements in Clause 9, and Amendment No. 170A, which deals with the same arrangements in Clause 12. I cannot add anything useful to what has been said already by the noble Lords who have spoken to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. I prefer the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to my own. If I had seen it when I sat down to prepare them I would have withheld my pen.
	As to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, to require someone to attend at a specified place and time "at his convenience" might be taking things slightly too far the other way. It could lead to a lot of argy-bargy when someone says that it is not convenient for him to attend for the next three months.
	There are many problems with a scheme of this sort, which is—I must stop saying this—in world terms, a first. It seeks to establish a national register of everybody and involves everybody being interviewed before they can get an identity card and so on. One of the problems is that it gives rise to such bureaucratic problems that one ends up having to take short cuts with what one might call our normal way of doing things. It surely must be right that the requirement to attend for an interview should be subject to the particulars of the person concerned—for instance, you may dealing with an old woman who is ill, or a silly old man who is ill, or a silly young man without a motor car. One can think of so many circumstances where, unless there was some reasonable qualification of the requirement, people could be put into the position where, under Clause 33—this is the other point—they would be subject to an automatic penalty. Officials are not even required under the Bill to inquire of the person who failed to attend an interview why he or she failed to attend. They are not required to give notice of the intention to impose a penalty, they simply impose it. If you then say, "Oh hang on, I had a heart attack the day before", they do not say, "Oh well, that's all right, you can appeal to the county court". No, they go one better than that: they say that the Secretary of State can then cancel the penalty. That is jolly good of him but, under our system, we do not impose penalties of up to £2,500 on people before we ask them the circumstances giving rise to the failure.
	Anyhow, enough is enough. I hope the noble Baroness will see the force of this very basic piece of British manners and allow one of these amendments.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The great irony of the Bill is that it has been brought forward by a Labour Government. I have said this before and I shall repeat it. If the Labour Party had been in opposition when such a Bill had been brought forward, there would have been not only a parliamentary explosion but a nationwide explosion. On marches up and down the country, people would have been protesting that we were losing our well-established individual freedoms.
	We have heard the details of these provisions and what is likely to happen. I believe that everything that has been said by those speaking to the amendments will come to pass. They are bound to come to pass because what is proposed is likely to turn out to be an administrative and civil liberties nightmare. We are talking about the registration of 60 million people—eventually, the compulsory registration of 60 million people.
	Let us not forget that very shortly, if I am not mistaken, a national child register will come into operation. You can see what will happen. The Bill currently applies to people over the age of 16; the national child register will then be combined with the national identity register and the identity card. This Labour Government, who used to want to look after you from the cradle to the grave, now want to be after you from the cradle to the grave. They will have every bit of information that they want and which they can alter from time to time and increase from time to time. They will know where you live, what you do, how many cars you have, and so on.
	The Government really believe that this can be done for 60 million people. Let us think of some of the administrative disasters that we have had so far. Indeed, let us think of just one—the Child Support Agency. That has been an administrative disaster in every respect. It has not done what was intended; it has not done what was promised; and it has not given to women the benefits that were promised under the Bill introducing it. We recently found out that this organisation, set up to chase after defaulters, has managed to get £8 million in arrears at a cost of £12 million in administration.
	In that organisation, far from the absent parent being caught and made to pay, more men—it is usually men—probably pay less than they would have done had the matter continued to be administered by the courts. This has been at a huge cost to the Exchequer, and to the lives of some men who were so oppressed that they committed suicide. Despite having failed to get some money out of absent parents, who are relatively few in number, the Government expect to be able eventually to register 60 million people. I simply do not believe that that is possible.
	These are ameliorating amendments. They will not cause the Bill to fall. We in this House are doing our best to make the Bill more acceptable.
	The provision will not work. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely right. The general public will rise up against it when they see exactly what is involved. Whoever is in power then—if we have a government foolish enough to proceed with this idea—will feel the electoral backlash.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: When this Bill breathed its first, I decided to regard it with an open mind and see what was proposed and, in particular, read the case for it. As the Bill has proceeded, I have become increasingly concerned. Everything that has been said today has added to my consternation. I agree with every word just said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. When people are presented with all of this they will rise up and some of them will say, "We have never had a clear and acceptable explanation of why the Bill is necessary and how much positive good it will do". In my book, it would have to do a great deal of good and be very effective to allow for even 10 per cent of what we have in front of us today. I am appalled at what this Government have put before us. They are daring to ask for our approval for something that strikes out freedom—which is most unjust and totally careless of people's convenience or the way that their lives may be running.
	From now on, it is important that more people outside this House understand precisely what is at issue because when they do in there certainly will be a sharp push against the Bill ever reaching the statute book. I have no doubt that here we have some excellent fighters who will, from now on, be fighting it every inch of the way.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have been at pains to explain that the detail needs to be set out in secondary legislation. That is exactly how we envisage it working. The noble and learned Lord made the point earlier. I will reflect on it again and there will be more discussions on it. We may well be able to discuss it further with the noble and learned Lord.
	Finally, the regime for civil penalties will be described in the code of practice. We shall make it clear in that that, because it is a civil penalties regime, there will not be the possibility of imprisonment directly as a result of the civil penalty.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. I join other noble Lords in expressing disquiet that we are being asked to discuss this regulation, when it seems to me, and the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, to be the third in a series of three. The Minister is shaking his head, but the reason it is difficult to discuss this one first is that it does not bring in vaccination issues, to which the noble Countess referred, and it would have been much easier to discuss these regulations in the light of vaccination.
	Nevertheless, I appreciate the need for clarity. If there are any lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak, from which we all suffered, it is that clarity and speed are of the essence. My main worry concerns the designation of separate production units, because in the report of the 6th Standing Committee in another place from 8 December, the Minister's said that infected premises were those premises that were confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Office as having the disease present. He says:
	"It would not be possible to designate separate production units. That designation has to depend on the circumstances at the time, what animals are kept and where, the biosecurity of the premises and the nature of the outbreak of the disease".—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/12/05; col. 9.]
	I appreciate that the nature of the outbreak might be variable, but surely more forward planning on what constitutes a separate production unit and what farmers might expect in an outbreak would be helpful. The best recent example of that has been the lack of planning apparent from the fact that, until last month, there was no register of poultry keepers. That is incredible, considering that avian flu has been around for the past two or three years. The Government should make an effort to do more work on what the separate production units might consist of so that if we are faced with another outbreak, speed and clarity can be achieved.
	Finally, the Minister said that the other two measures would be introduced by negative procedure. Why was this one introduced by affirmative procedure? The instrument on vaccination, which I would have thought merited an equal amount of debate, will be introduced under the negative procedure.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 30 November 2005, together with the explanatory memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. The draft order amends the International Organisations Act 1968, the Companies Act 1985 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The International Organisations Act 1968 allows the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on international organisations and individuals connected with international organisations. Orders made under Sections 1 and 2 of the International Organisations Act 1968 (Sections 1(6)(a) and 2(5)) can confer only the privileges and immunities expressly provided for in the international agreement which is being implemented. Therefore, unless an international agreement provides for privileges and immunities to be conferred on the civil partner of the primary beneficiary of the privileges and immunities, we currently do not have the vires to do so.
	This draft order will amend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on civil partners. Section 153(4)(bb) of the Companies Act 1985 provides that share ownership incentive schemes for spouses of employees and former employees of a company are not prohibited as a form of financial assistance for the purchase of shares under Section 151 of the Act. Section 743 of the Companies Act 1985 defines "employees' share scheme" for the purposes of the Act, as including share schemes for the benefit of the spouses of employees and former employees of a company. The draft order will amend Section 153(4)(bb) and Section 743 so that share incentive schemes apply equally to civil partners and spouses of employees, and former employees, of a company.
	Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which extends to England and Wales only, was amended by Section 79(8) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to provide for civil partnership to be included alongside the references to marriage. The draft order will further amend Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This will enable the registrar general to advise an adopted person who wishes to form a civil partnership whether he and his proposed civil partner are within the prohibited degrees of relationship, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
	The Civil Partnership Act 2004 provides a new legal framework that will enable recognition of same-sex relationships through the new status of civil partner and the new legal relationship of civil partnership. Civil partners will now have legally binding rights and responsibilities in relation to each other and will have acquired a new status, which will affect how they are treated by third parties, including the state. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 aims to ensure parity of treatment between married couples and civil partners, except where there is an objective justification for a difference in treatment. The amendments made in this draft order will allow the United Kingdom to ensure that parity of treatment is accorded to civil partners.
	I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important and I hope and trust, given the decisions of Parliament on the status of civil partnerships, that it is non-controversial and that it will receive the full support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120, which are probing amendments. I tabled them in response to briefings that I received from the Royal National Institute of the Blind. My intention, when I have heard the Minister's response, is to refer back to the RNIB to determine whether it feels that any further assurances or answers from the Government could be elicited either on Report or at meetings with the RNIB between now and Report stage. It may be that we can obviate any further amendments on the subject.
	The Liberal Democrat Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 are grouped with my amendments and cover the broad argument about the kind of assistance that should be given to those who are required to attend enrolment centres. Amendment No. 115 would impose a duty on the Government to ensure that the travel and associated expenses of attending at an enrolment centre should be borne by the Exchequer. The Government would be required to set out the likely costs to Parliament before they are able to implement Clause 5. We will of course look more closely at costs when we get to my noble friend Lady Noakes' amendment. This looks at a specific aspect of costing.
	The second part of Amendment No. 115 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled people who will be required to attend at an enrolment centre. I recognise that the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 105 and its group addressed much of that in giving assurances. I will look at Hansard to see whether they will satisfy the RNIB. I realise that the Minister was not seeking to answer this amendment, but he adduced that the Government were trying to do the right thing and said that assistance would be given to different groups. So we need to look at the specifics.
	Amendment No. 119 requires the Secretary of State to consider the impact that the scheme will have on vulnerable or disabled persons when he designs it. Amendment No. 120 would impose a requirement that when the Secreatary of State informs those who have sight limitations that they must attend an enrolment centre, he must ensure that his order to them to attend is in a form that they can understand.
	It would be right to put on the record the justification which the RNIB puts forward for these amendments, not only to assist the Government in responding but also to assist other Members of the Committee. The institute points out that there are nearly 10 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. Under Clause 6 the Secretary of State may by order require individuals to attend a registration centre and be entered into the register. This will include disabled people. However, many older and disabled people will not be able to make journeys independently to the registration centres. The RNIB believes that the order needs to set out what assistance would be made available to those unable to make their own way to an enrolment centre either in the form of transport for people with limited mobility or assistance with the costs of arranging transport. The institute makes a strong point.
	On 20 January of this year, when the previous identity cards Bill was being considered in Committee in another place, the then Minister, Mr Des Browne, said:
	"On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill"—
	shades of the Minister's answer this evening—
	"as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 20/1/05; col. 175.]
	I agree with that. It is an issue that the Government will be required to address, and I know that they are aware of that. The RNIB would welcome from the Government a full update on the assistance they intend to offer to disabled and older people with transport and the costs of transport, or whether they will opt instead for a widespread home registration or mobile enrolment programme, making assistance unnecessary.
	The justification for Amendment No. 120 is much clearer: it is important that people are readily able to understand the order sent to them to attend at an enrolment centre. Even if the Government offer a variety of dates and times, the format used to make the person aware that they need to attend has to be clear because, as we have said, a civil penalty is hiding in the wings if someone intentionally tries to get round the system. Here we have a whole body of people who may have sight limitations or dyslexia. They would have absolutely no intention of thwarting the will of the Government, but may not readily be able to take on board the directions they are given. I beg to move.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: While I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Anelay has just said about this aspect of what she accurately described as a skeleton Bill, I rise to support Amendment No. 117A, which relates to Clause 6(1). This provision would have done credit to the informed and perceptive imagination of George Orwell. Subsection (1) states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals of a description specified in the order to be entered in the Register".
	Lo and behold, it then goes on to say:
	"An order . . . may impose an obligation on individuals required to be entered in the Register to apply"
	to be so entered. Not only can the Secretary of State therefore require someone to be entered in the register who does not want to be—indeed, who wants not to be—the measure goes on, with sublime artistry, to oblige him to apply to be entered. Not even Big Brother in 1984 or the pigs thought of imposing that on poor decent old Boxer, who gradually came to find himself subjected to a status intolerably subordinate to them. At least Orwell did not fashion a scheme obliging him to ask for just that. Therefore, this amendment ought to be supported because without subsection (1), subsection (2), which is my real target, would fall.

Lord Crickhowell: After that devastating intervention, no doubt this clause will be called the "George Orwell clause", and rightly so to remind those outside the House what this Bill is all about. In an earlier debate at about this stage in the evening, a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber reminded us of a very unfortunate piece of Conservative legislation—the poll tax. I suggested that this Bill might be the Government's poll tax Bill. Poll tax Bill or Orwell Bill, we are beginning to get to the real nasties in this Bill.
	It is unfortunate that so important an amendment should be moved at this stage of the evening in a thinly attended Committee, but no doubt we shall find a better opportunity to return to a matter of great importance. I agree with my noble friend who moved the amendment that this is a key amendment in our proceedings. Surely it cannot be right to make this great step forward except by primary legislation.
	The Bill has been interestingly divided into two parts. The first part is the "We all want it because it is all going to be so helpful and convenient" part. Apparently, the great British public may not realise what they are demanding, but if they fully understood it, they would be standing on the street corners saying, "We want this Bill. This is for our convenience. The Government are putting it forward with no other purpose than to be helpful to all of us". But then we suddenly jump to another part of the Bill—to "The Government want it because it suits them" part. We heard a classic argument just before we broke for dinner on those lines. The time and place amendment was justified by the Minister on the ground that the Government considered that it was essential to their purpose to have a smooth running Bill. Some of us consider that it is the job of this House to attach equal weight to guaranteeing that the citizen has a Bill that suits him and guarantees his freedoms and conveniences. So when we start to move from the "Let's all have it and actually, you know, this is a lovely popular piece of legislation" stage to the point when it becomes compulsory, Parliament ought to be allowed to stop and consider very carefully.
	Of course one of the justifications that the Government have advanced for the way in which they are proceeding—in other words for dividing this Bill into two parts—is: "We want to see how it develops. We want to make sure that it all works in a way that is helpful, suitable and not too expensive. We want to make sure that the biometric systems work in the way that we forecast they will work; that all the things that we say are going to go so smoothly really do go smoothly, before we go on to this much more difficult phase, in which we are going to have to persuade the British electorate that it really was a rather good idea to impose compulsion on them".
	Already, we know from the debates that have taken place in this House that there have been a good many misunderstandings. On Second Reading, we had a speech from the noble Lord who is the former commissioner of the police. He defended the legislation, but in terms that made sense only if it was compulsory to carry the identity card and if you not only carried it but you had to produce it to a policeman whenever he asked for it. Otherwise, the whole defence that the noble Lord advanced made no sense at all. We are moving to a stage where something quite different is being proposed; not something helpful where we might find it useful to be able to prove who we are, but to a stage in which the Government will find it very useful because they will have much more effective control over citizens and the lives of citizens.
	I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the war and the aftermath of the war. I remember the rejoicing and the delight when the old identity card was abolished by a Conservative government. The abolition was welcomed because people had discovered that carrying an identity card was something that they did not really like doing, although they understood perfectly well when the nation was threatened in a world war that it was necessary that they should do it. Now I suppose we will be told that we are threatened by terrorism and by crime on a scale and of a form that makes a similar sacrifice necessary, although no evidence has been produced that that is the case. There is no evidence that the card will really make a practical difference. Before we take such a step, the Government have got to justify to the nation that that is the circumstance of the time when we go to compulsion; that there really is such a threat to our society that a measure of this kind is necessary and essential. They clearly are not making that case now.
	If it was necessary and essential, as they say it is, they would be introducing it now and at this moment, because the threat is supposed to be with us now and at this moment. If you think you have got a measure that will prevent us being decimated by international terrorism, you do not say, "We may introduce it in two, three, four or five years' time". You say, "We will introduce it now". The Government clearly do not believe that it is necessary or they would introduce it now. Therefore, before they take this step at some unknown date in the future, they must come before Parliament and justify it to Parliament not in a constrained way, not when Parliament is in a constrained condition debating an order-making process—even if that order-making process has been extended and enlarged—but in a process under which we examine, probe and amend all serious legislation, as we are seeking to do tonight.
	Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. It is a key amendment in our proceedings and if, as seems likely at this stage of the evening, we cannot press it to a conclusion, I hope that she will choose a suitable moment later in our proceedings to ask the House to look at this issue and give it the importance that it deserves.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend talks of the importance of hearsay evidence. But here we have another example of that tendency. It is incumbent on us to look extremely carefully and cautiously when we see such a tendency exemplified in a Bill. I think—I shall be interested to hear what other Members of the Committee think—that this is classically a case where we should err on the side of the greater protection of the citizen; that is, to make these offences criminal in order that they attract the greater protections which that brings.
	It is interesting that under the European Convention on Human Rights, when applying Article 6, the courts will look at the substance of the offences in the legislation and not be dazzled by the form, let alone the nomenclature. They will look at whether the obligation attracting penalties is general rather than a particular or a group obligation—in this case, the answer to that is manifestly yes. The noble Baroness has been very frank to say that this will be a universal scheme affecting the whole population, which would speak in favour of arrangements being criminal rather than civil. The courts will look at the nature of the offence, which is not as clear. But I still maintain that on balance these offences look to me, and will certainly feel to those affected by them, to be more criminal than civil. They will look at the severity of the penalties attaching to the breaches of the law—penalties of £1,000 to £2,500 per offence. There is no gradation, which would give a lower potential for a first offence.
	The penalties imposed by some of the lowlier road traffic offences, which are certainly criminal offences, look a great deal more draconian. The European Court will also look at whether the penalty or fine is intended to have a deterrent effect. Patently, that is the case, which is one of the arguments advanced by the Government for bringing the provisions forward. It strikes me that on an Article 6 test, the offences here and the penalties attaching to them bear more the characteristics of criminal than civil offences. In its most recent report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that Article 6 compliance can best be assured if,
	"the procedures for imposition of penalties under the Bill aim to comply with Article 6 criminal due process guarantees".
	That is the brief exposition on why this group of amendments introduces mens rea or intent into the offences concerned.
	I invite Members of the Committee to look at a couple of cases that one might have to deal with. Let us take a failure under Clause 5(5)(a) to attend an interview. As I said earlier today, under the Bill an automatic penalty is imposed by the Secretary of State. There is no requirement to ask the defaulter—as he or she is referred to—whether they were the person concerned and whether they had a reason for failing to attend the interview. That may be what is intended extra-legally, so to speak, in terms of the code, but nothing in the Bill entitles the person against whom the penalty is imposed to have their say before its imposition. That seems a quite grotesque state of affairs.
	If our car breaks down, we suddenly become ill or for any of a considerable number of reasons we fail to attend one of these interviews, we will be the subject of an automatic penalty decided by the Secretary of State without reference to us. We then have a right of appeal to the county court. Indeed, to be fair, the Bill states that at that point we can write to the Secretary of State with reasons—"I had a heart attack" or "My car blew up". The Secretary of State may then reconsider. He can wipe out the penalty, reduce it or leave it as it is. That leaves the defaulter with the option to appeal to the county court.
	All that strikes me as profoundly unsatisfactory. I venture to suggest that if the Government get this measure through in what I would call "compulsory form", it will serve no purpose and do no good for the way the scheme is perceived by the public at large. It denies what I would call normal due process for the penalties imposed under the Bill. The first and most essential element in that is that there should be a degree of intent. If someone fails to attend an interview, they should not have an excuse which makes it clear that it was not a wilful failure on their part. The absence of intent should deprive the Secretary of State of the right to impose a penalty.
	Finally, I turn to another aspect of the compulsory requirements under Clause 5: to allow oneself to be photographed. There are people—not many of them—who have a phobia about being photographed. I am not going to be soft-soaped or impressed by stuff about what may happen behind these provisions out of the goodness of the heart of the Government, or the noble Baroness saying that nothing would be further from her thoughts than to be nasty to someone with a phobia. I am not remotely concerned with that. Under the Bill, where the penalties of this nature are being imposed, there should be normal, conventional and proper protections for the citizenry of this country. That means a degree of intent, and that is why this group of amendments has been tabled. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: These amendments raise the issue of the level of fault necessary to fall foul of the civil penalty regime. By ensuring that individuals will be liable only to a civil penalty if they intentionally contravene an order to register themselves, the amendments will protect those who, through ignorance, inability or pure mistake, do not meet the deadlines or details of the order. The order may not have been served at the correct address or the individual may never receive the order due to illness, change of address or for any number of reasons. To impose a form of strict liability on the individual for breaches of such an order, no matter how blameless the failure to comply, is neither fair nor reasonable. It does not allow for the circumstances of the individual to be taken into account.
	No doubt the Minister will seek to allay the concerns raised here by saying that by virtue of Clause 35 there is a right of appeal to the county court. However, although an important safeguard, that should not allow Clause 6 to pass unnoticed. As it stands it is draconian in the extreme. It implements a system of arbitrary fines and penalties, the impact of which would invariably fall most heavily on the section of the population that is most likely not to be able to meet the requirements of an order and who could least afford to pay—the elderly and students being the most obvious examples.
	The appeals process proposed in Clause 35 is not exactly comfort to the pensioner who has to battle against the Home Secretary's decision in the county court. A county court summons could be a very frightening experience for some people and employing lawyers to represent one in the county court is an expensive option and way beyond the means of some people, particularly the elderly and the most vulnerable. The court system is already over burdened and all the scheme will achieve is to over burden it more. The parking fine system and the speed camera system were referred to in another place as deeply unpopular schemes. If this scheme is allowed to go ahead it will likewise cause widespread resentment and unnecessary and costly hearings in county courts across the country.
	The size of the potential fine, or whatever one calls it—£2,500—is tantamount to a criminal penalty in practice if not in theory. That is all the more reason to introduce a fault requirement if a penalty is to be imposed. Setting that threshold at the level of intention is reasonable and proportionate: it will prevent the deliberate disregarding of any order and therefore is all that is necessary to meet the aims of Clause 6 and the civil penalty regime. Any more than that and the Bill risks introducing a scheme that will be extremely unfair.
	As my honourable friend Mr Mercer said in Committee in another place:
	"We are fooling ourselves if we think that we are setting up a nice friendly system. We are talking about coercion driven by money and the extraction of money from the individual in which the individual has to establish, albeit on the civil standard, that he is free of the obligation imposed on him by the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 203.]
	By inserting the requirement that an order must have been contravened intentionally, the amendment would shift the burden to the Secretary of State to prove that this was the case, albeit on the civil standard of proof.

The Earl of Erroll: I agree with everything that has been said. The real person who will suffer from this is the person with a large mortgage and little spare cash. When you are whacked with a fine like this you will have a major problem because it costs money to appeal in court. The likelihood is that the first letter will be whacked down by the Home Office because it will have seen too many sob stories. It will just say, "Terribly sorry; you have to pay up". You then have to take the matter to court. How will you afford a lawyer? If you have a nice house you will not get legal aid, so where will the money come from? It is a delicate balancing act as to whether you can afford to take the case to court. Most people end up being frightened, particularly if they are trying to run a business of their own or something like that. They will not have the time to spend on doing this.
	I have seen something like this happen with the congestion charge. If the scheme is outsourced to a private company, which it probably will be, it is even more likely to be abused because revenue will be dependent upon the amount of money raised. The company will have an interest in ensuring that the maximum is got back from it. I will not bore the Committee tonight with the details relating to the congestion charge of sending things to one address, lifting a car from another address and then not notifying you so even the police do not know that it is in the pound. There are horror stories out there about the way that these companies behave or the bureaucracy behaves, so it is the essential to have this word "intentional" included and change the burden of proof back to the way that we have always had in Britain in our common law society where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor; the state.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: What the Minister describes relates to the means by which the punishment can be enforced; it does not relate to the character of the penalty, which is a punishment—as she has virtually conceded. The punishment is criminal in character and, accordingly, ought not to be able to imposed save on proof of intention. That is what we are on about—and I am afraid that I have not grasped that the Minister has herself grasped that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his rapid introduction because I think that we went over a lot of this in earlier amendments. The noble Lord is right. We could not possibly agree to a bargaining game in your Lordships' Chamber in the way that the amendment invites us to do. I simply invite the noble Lord to consider that any major reduction in the penalties of the order suggested would hardly be said to be a deterrent. In any event, it will be for the court to consider. The amounts will be imposed on a case-by-case basis having regard to the circumstances, and those will obviously be some of the matters that were raised in our earlier debate.
	My noble friend Lady Scotland referred to paragraph 16, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the issue of the degree of compliance. He is right that at the first instance one would not expect the upper end of the penalty to be imposed, but if there were a failure to conform on subsequent occasions of course one would expect the penalties to increase, and that is exactly what the draft code of practice says at paragraph 6.15. The end of that paragraph states:
	"If the contravention is particularly serious or there is a history of previous contraventions, the penalty may be increased accordingly".
	That is how we intent it to work. We would not initially expect the penalty to be imposed at the top end. We cannot see that reducing the penalties would in any way be a form of deterrent. We rely on the deterrent because it is an important part of the package. People need to understand that contravention is serious. I understand why the noble Lord has moved the amendment, but we cannot agree to it. He understands that and we think that we have the maximum penalties about right.
	The code of practice is important in terms of interpretation and I would expect it to work well in those circumstances. Given the code of practice, the noble Lord should feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the purport of the amendment. Of course, we shall want to listen to the views of the national identity scheme commissioner. I would expect that she or he will wish to comment on plans for compulsion. We do not believe that it would be right to provide a requirement in primary legislation that Ministers should have to await a review by the commissioner before being able to make a compulsion order using the super-affirmative resolution procedure in Clause 7. We believe that that would add unnecessary delay and, while we have no intention of rushing plans for compulsion, the process of the super-affirmative order itself will be bound to take some time to complete.
	Of course, I am not saying that we would not benefit from the views of the national identity scheme commissioner. As I have indicated, we would wish to know the commissioner's views and any report that the national identity scheme commissioner produced would be laid before Parliament for its consideration. However, for the reasons that I have given, we do not think that we should be bound to wait for such a report from the commissioner before the Secretary of State could make a compulsion order using the super-affirmative resolution procedure under Clause 7. Therefore, I asked the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lea of Crondall: In moving Amendment No. 137 I shall seek to demonstrate why the Secretary of State will need to develop a procedure and, in turn, to consult on such a procedure for regularising the position of foreign nationals residing in the United Kingdom without entitlement to remain—in other words, illegal immigrants.
	The Bill, along with the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, radically changes the context in which this question has to be considered. The Home Office produced an invaluable study in June called Sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom in 2001. In estimating the number for 2001, the methodology was to subtract from the central estimate of 3.6 million—that is the total foreign-born population—the total legal foreign-born population of 3.2 million. The result was a central estimate of 430,000. Given developments since then, the usual figure bandied about is 500,000; that is, 0.5 million.
	The Minister, Tony McNulty, said at that time that this is only an estimate and should not be seen as a definitive figure. It is a useful contribution to the debate and underlines the need for a robust ID card system which will, among other benefits, help to tackle illegal working and immigration. Let us assume, for argument's sake that about half of the 0.5 million—250,000—will ultimately have their position regularised. I note that the Explanatory Notes, in dealing with Clause 5(3), says:
	"For example, third country nationals may be required to provide information regarding their immigration status".
	Amendment No. 137 reflects the fact that the enactment of this Bill will catalyse a substantial programme of regularising the position of thousands of illegal immigrants.
	At Second Reading last week on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill the noble Lord, Lord Chan, took the example of the number—probably more than 100,000—of people working in Chinese restaurants whose status may not so far have been inquired into too closely, under the traditional social contract in Britain, which will now have to be changed, that people's status is not of much concern to the authorities.
	Similarly, we have the regularisation taking place in conjunction with the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act. Some trade union officials whom I know, along with the National Farmers' Union, as well as employers in the food processing industry have worked hard to make credible the rules governing the regularisation of the position of people employed by gangmasters. I am talking about regularisation from the point of view of employment law and taxation et cetera. There is a connection. There is a benefit to society of the regularisation of many of the people involved. We have only to look at the case of Morecambe Bay to know that many of those people were in a position that has parallels with that described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan.
	The amendment facilitates an active rather than a passive strategy of regularisation. The issue is not so much whether to have a process of regularising the status of some hundreds of thousands of people, but how thought-through, coherent and transparent the strategy will be. We do not want them all to stay underground in the black economy, where their situation and that of the economy and the security of the nation would be worse.
	I do not doubt that there are procedures under the immigration Acts for regularising the position of people who have been in the country for 15 years or so. However, the Bill and the parallel Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will catalyse a whole new range of questions and there will be a timetable within which those questions will need to be answered. We need to consider how the immigration Bill will affect people's wish to come forward to try to regularise their position. I do not expect my noble friend to guesstimate this evening how many of the 500,000 will, at the end of this exercise, have their position regularised. It is not prima facie likely that the Bill and the immigration Bill will prove to be the last word on the subject.
	In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to take on board that we need an iterative process updating the rules governing the right to remain in the light of the huge changes in the architecture brought about by those two Bills. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Lea have identified an issue of concern. I fully understand why they have that concern. Before compulsory registration is introduced, the position of those foreign nationals here illegally, especially those who are in settled employment and have resided here for a period of time, should be considered sympathetically. I understand why they say that.
	Undoubtedly, this is one of the areas that would be looked at before compulsion is introduced. Nevertheless, it is right to remind Members of the Committee that the Immigration Rules already allow people who have been here lawfully for 10 years, or unlawfully for 14 years, to seek indefinite leave to remain. So, if the move to compulsion brought to notice people who had been here for a considerable period, those who had been here for 10 or 14 years in the categories that I have mentioned, could already apply for settlement here under the Immigration Rules.
	As we have just discussed, it is likely to be a number of years before the compulsion provisions are introduced. So I would hope that no one here illegally will wait that long in the hope that his or her stay will be regularised. Anyone who wants to work or reside in this country should seek to do so now under the Immigration Rules. Members of the Committee will know that we have tried to make it as easy and as straightforward for those who have a legitimate basis to be in this country to do so under the rules that we have now provided. I understand my noble friend's concern and I am sure that he will understand that it would be wrong to promise any blanket amnesty.
	I hope that I can further reassure my noble friend. The introduction of a general requirement to register and obtain an identity card is for the future once the initial rollout of the identity card scheme is complete. However, I am confident that the government of the day will give sympathetic consideration to the cases of any person or people who did not quite benefit from these existing long residence provisions, but whose time here was such that it would be wrong to expect their departure from the United Kingdom to be enforced.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea that it is right to be ready to look at such cases if and when they arise, but I do not think that it would be right to include a commitment to do so in this legislation. I acknowledge the support that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gives to this measure. I see the force of what was said. There is a risk that accepting my noble friend's amendment would imply that special treatment will be accorded to illegal immigrants. There will also be a risk of uncertainty that this Government are serious about the aim of controlling immigration. One of the key purposes of the scheme is immigration enforcement, and this would be undermined. Not only that, but I fear that there is a risk that accepting this amendment might even be seen—I know that this is not what my noble friend seeks—as encouraging people to overstay their leave to remain by offering a prospect of regularisation in the future. It would not be right to do that. Identity cards are intended to reduce the pull factor by making it harder for people to live here illegally, not to imply that we will be bound to regularise the position of people here illegally when identity cards become compulsory. I reiterate to my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that we recognise their concerns. But, having voiced them, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I probably agree with quite a lot of the interpretation and the nuances. Then we would have to discuss what that actually meant in relation to the Bill and where I disagreed with the noble Lord; for example, that we did not make clear what would prevail had the constitutional treaty been implemented. There would be quite a lot to discuss. Although the noble Lord and I might enjoy that discussion, I doubt that many Members of the Committee would join in our revelry.
	The first point to note is that in drafting this Bill the United Kingdom is operating entirely on its own initiative. We are under no obligation, be it from the EU or from any other international body, to introduce identity cards. Quite separately from the proposals contained in this Bill, the United Kingdom has been working on a purely intergovernmental basis with other member states of the European Union to agree common minimum security standards for identity cards. Council conclusions based on the work of national experts on the minimum standards were agreed at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 and 2 December, and have been published on the Europa website—so it is all there now.
	I shall set out the sound and sensible reasons for this intergovernmental work. As the Committee knows, there is no such thing as an EU identity card. Each member state legislates, if it so wishes, for its own identity cards scheme. However, in order to ensure that the principle of the free movement of persons is adhered to, each member state must accept identity cards issued by the other member states as proof of treaty rights. Indeed, we were already accepting identity cards issued by certain other European states as travel documents on a bilateral basis even before we first joined the then European Community. It has become very common since then for European citizens to be able to use their travel document, in the form of an identity card, to come here.
	It follows that if one or more member states is producing identity cards which are not secure and which are easily forged, then all the member states are open to abuse of their immigration systems. Agreeing common minimum security standards will limit the scope of such abuse. So it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to encourage the highest standard of identity cards issued by other member states so that we do not face problems with illegal immigrants attempting to use forged or improperly obtained identity cards issued by another member state to enter the United Kingdom. Thus it is in our strong interests to participate and encourage that work even though we do not currently have an identity cards scheme and irrespective of whether we ever introduce identity cards. Whatever happens, this work will have to be undertaken. I should reiterate that the ongoing discussions relate only to minimum security standards in identity cards and are on a purely intergovernmental basis and thus non-legally binding.
	Regardless of whether the Bill receives Royal Assent, the United Kingdom will continue to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis on the issues of minimum security standards for identity cards. Whether or not we have our own identity cards scheme, it is in our interest to ensure that all those who produce an identity card issued by an EU member state as a travel document to enter the United Kingdom to demonstrate their treaty rights are entitled to that document and to those treaty rights. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that it is the United Kingdom Parliament alone, on its own initiative, that is legislating for the introduction of an identity card scheme in this country. The discussions that are ongoing, on an intergovernmental basis, between the member states of the European Union are aimed at addressing the problem of identity cards that are issued to a very low security standard. Those discussions do not purport to introduce, nor are they a precursor to, any single EU identity card scheme.
	I take very keenly the complaints and concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in relation to the work of the Select Committee on the European Union, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who wrote to the Home Office in that regard. We replied to that letter, and we made it clear that while we appreciated the wish to be involved in the work on this issue we had to stress that there was no requirement for non-legally binding documents, such as the draft that was submitted to the December Justice and Home Affairs Council, to be deposited for scrutiny. Those are the conclusions of the representatives of the member states acting on an intergovernmental basis; they are not EU Council conclusions. As recognised in the third recital to the conclusions, no legally binding standards or timetables have been imposed. This is a non-legally binding intergovernmental initiative.
	Therefore, we produced the recital, and it is specifically referred to in the fourth recital of that document. It does not affect the right of any member state to decide whether to issue an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote his letter of 31 October simply to inform the Committee that the work was going on because it would be of interest to the Committee while this was taking place. We were confident, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed his confidence, that agreement on these standards, which all member states now regard as important, would represent significant progress in enhancing document security and fulfilling the remit of both the Hague programme and the July Justice and Home Affairs Council.